Reducing false counts in condensation particle counters

ABSTRACT

Various embodiments include methods and apparatuses to reduce false-particle counts in a water-based condensation particle counter (CPC). In one embodiment, a cleanroom CPC has three parallel growth tube assemblies. A detector is coupled to an outlet of each of the three parallel growth tube assemblies, and is used to compare the particle concentrations measured from each of the three growth tube assemblies. An algorithm compares the counts from the three detectors and determines when the particles counted are real and when they are false counts. Any real particle event shows up in all three detectors, while false counts will only be detected by one detector. Statistics are used to determine at which particle count levels the measured counts are considered to be real versus false. Other methods and apparatuses are disclosed.

CLAIM OF PRIORITY

This application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. ProvisionalPatent Application No. 62/317,102, filed Apr. 1, 2016, and entitled,“REDUCING FALSE COUNTS IN A CONDENSATION PARTICLE COUNTER,” which ishereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

Condensation Particle Counters (CPCs) have traditionally had highfalse-count rates, especially when compared with optical particlecounters. In an optical particle counter, false counts are usuallycaused by optical or electrical noise, and can often be filtered out oreliminated because the false counts have scattering characteristics thatcreate pulses that look different than pulses from real particles. In aCPC however, false counts are caused internal to the CPC when particlesare formed within the instrument. Since these particles then grow thesame as the particles being measured, the false-count particles look thesame as the real particles, thereby making it difficult or impossible todistinguish between real counts and false counts. Consequently,eliminating false counts in a CPC is an exceedingly difficult task.

Moreover, the high false-count rates are typically more prevalent inwater-based CPCs as compared with CPCs based on other types of workingfluids (e.g., alcohol based CPCs using, for example, isopropanol orbutanol). Previous attempts by various manufacturers to develop a highflow rate CPC with a low false-count rate for use in cleanroomapplications have been unsuccessful. While some approaches yield verygood false-count rates initially, these approaches have been unable tosustain these low false-count rates for significant lengths of time.

Since CPCs have been typically used to measure higher concentrations ofparticles, this high false-count rate has not been an issue in mostapplications. However, the high false-count rate is a significantproblem for measuring low particle concentrations as found in, forexample, cleanrooms and environments in which electronics manufacturingprocesses occur. The high false-count rate becomes even more criticalwith the increased sample flow rate of a cleanroom CPC, which istypically 2.83 liter per minute (0.1 ft³ per minute).

However, as volumetric sample flow rates increase, any working fluidthat drains in to the flow path has a tendency to create bubbles orother forms of small droplet. The small droplets then grow into largeparticles that are detected by an optical particle detector within theCPC. Since these counts are generated internally to the CPC and are notcaused by actual particles from a monitored environment, theinternally-generated counts are considered “false-particle counts” andoccur even when the particle counter is sampling clean HEPA-filteredair.

The performance of a CPC is rated by the number of false counts over aspecified time period. For example, a semiconductor cleanroom mayrequire less than six false counts per hour. Consequently, in general,the lower the number of false counts, the better the instrument. Thedisclosed subject matter describes techniques and designs to reduce oreliminate false-particle counts in a CPC.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a generalized view of a water-based condensation particlecounted (CPC);

FIG. 2 shows a cross-section of a water-based CPC that incorporates aplurality of wicks that are used to form multiple flow paths (e.g.,parallel growth tubes) to form one type of false-particle countreduction embodiment disclosed herein;

FIG. 3A shows an isometric view of an embodiment of a portion of awater-based CPC having a plurality of multiple flow paths, as in FIG. 2,and also incorporates separate particle detectors coupled to each of theindividual flow paths;

FIG. 3B shows another isometric view of an embodiment of a detectorportion of a water-based CPC of FIG. 3A, with certain components removedto more clearly indicate each of the separate optical particledetectors;

FIG. 4 is a graph showing the cumulative probability that, for n=1 to100 particles, and given two equally probable paths, the cumulativeprobability that up to “x” particles choose a given path, “X”; and

FIGS. 5A and 5B show a method using a decision tree-based algorithm toreduce or eliminate false counts in a CPC.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Reported count rates in contemporaneous water-based condensationparticle counters (CPCs) are generally not acceptable for cleanroomapplications due to the high false-particle count rate. Currentcleanroom requirements (e.g., in the semiconductor industry) specify astringent false-count rate of less than six counts per hour. Variousembodiments disclosed herein include techniques and designs that weredeveloped specifically to reduce or eliminate false counts caused byvarious factors, such as water bubbles or empty water droplets (e.g.,detected “particles” not containing an actual particle serving as anucleation point). Typically, these particles are created in “events”that result in a burst of particles, varying from several particles totens and even hundreds of particles or more. These are short events(lasting for seconds), and are separated by long periods of time with noparticles generated, but similar events can happen in the real world.However, since these events occur within the growth tube, statistically,the events will only occur in one growth tube at any given time. If aburst of particles occurs in only one growth tube, it is caused by afalse-count event. Any real event would be detected in all three growthtubes.

In one embodiment, the cleanroom CPC disclosed herein uses three growthtubes (“wicks”) arranged in parallel with each other in order toincrease the sample flow rate of the instrument. In one exemplaryembodiment, the disclosed subject matter adds a separate individualparticle detector to an outlet of each of the three growth tubes andcompares signals measured at the outlets of each of the three individualparticle detectors to determine if the events being detected are realcounts, caused by actual particles from the monitored environment, orfalse counts. False counts are caused by events that occur in one growthtube at a time and therefore will only be detected by one of the threeparticle detectors. As explained in greater detail below, real particlesare equally likely to pass through any one of the three growth tubes,and as a result, statistically, all three detectors will sense and countparticles. Events that occur on only one detector are false counts andcan be eliminated, greatly reducing or eliminating the false-count rateof the CPC.

In general, a condensation particle counter (also known as acondensation nucleus counter) is used to detect particles in a monitoredenvironment that are too small to scatter enough light to be detected byconventional detection techniques (e.g., light scattering of a laserbeam in an optical particle counter). The small particles are grown to alarger size by condensation formed on the particle. That is, eachparticle serves as a nucleation point for the working fluid; a vapor,which is produced by the instrument's working fluid, is condensed ontothe particles to make them larger. After achieving growth of theparticle due to condensation of the working fluid vapor onto theparticle, CPCs function similarly to optical particle counters in thatthe individual droplets then pass through the focal point (or line) of alaser beam, producing a flash of light in the form of scatteredradiation, Each light flash is counted as one particle. The science ofcondensation particle counters, and the complexity of theinstrumentation, lies with the technique to condense vapor onto theparticles. When the vapor surrounding the particles reaches a specificdegree of supersaturation, the vapor begins to condense on theparticles. The magnitude of supersaturation determines the minimumdetectable particle size of the CPC. Generally, the supersaturationprofile within the instrument is tightly controlled.

While there are several methods which can be used to createcondensational growth, the most widely used technique is a continuous,laminar flow method. Continuous flow laminar CPCs have more precisetemperature control than other types of CPCs, and they have fewerparticle losses than instruments that use turbulent (mixing) flow. In alaminar flow CPC, a sample is drawn continuously through a conditionerregion which is saturated with vapor and the sample is brought tothermal equilibrium. Next, the sample is pulled into a region wherecondensation occurs. In contrast, in an alcohol-based (e.g., isopropanolor butanol) CPC, the conditioner region is at a warm temperature, andthe condensation region (saturator) is relatively cooler. Water has veryhigh vapor diffusivity, so a laminar flow water-based CPC with a coolcondensation region does not work thermodynamically. In a laminar flowwater-based CPC, the conditioner region is cool, and the condensationregion is relatively warmer.

Water-based CPCs have a clear set of advantages over alcohol-based CPCs.Water is non-toxic, environmentally friendly, and easy to procure. Waterhowever, also has a few disadvantages. In general, the liquid purity isnot as tightly controlled for water as for alcohols purchased fromchemical supply houses. The impurities in the water may build up in the“wick” (described below), and eventually cause the wick material tobecome ineffective. To counteract this impurity effect, distilled orhigh-purity water is frequently utilized. Additionally, the wicks areoften field replaceable by an end-user. In some environments whereextremely low particle counts are expected to be present (e.g., asemiconductor-fabrication facility), the end-user may use waterspecifically prepared and packaged for use in normal-phase liquidchromatography (NPLC). NPLC water is ultra-pure water with a lowultra-violet (UV) absorbance, often filtered through, for example, a 0.2micrometer (μm) filter, and packaged in solvent-rinsed amber glassbottles and sealed under an inert atmosphere such as nitrogen. The useof NPLC water can help to reduce or eliminate false-particle counts fromcontaminants (e.g., ions, particles or bacteria) that may ordinarily bepresent in the water.

In the following detailed description, reference is made to theaccompanying drawings that form a part of the false-particle reductiontechniques and in which is shown, by way of illustration, specificembodiments. Other embodiments may be utilized and, for example, variousthermodynamic, electrical, or physical changes may be made withoutdeparting from the scope of the present disclosure. The followingdetailed description is, therefore, is to be taken in an illustrativesense rather than in a limiting sense.

With reference now to FIG. 1, a generalized view of a water-basedcondensation particle counter (CPC) 100 is shown. The water-based CPC100 is used to monitor a particle concentration level within a givenenvironment (e.g., a semiconductor-fabrication facility). Thethermodynamic considerations governing operations of water-based CPCsare known in the art and therefore will not be discussed in significantdetail herein.

The water-based CPC 100 is shown to include a flow path 101 directing anaerosol sample flow 103 through a porous media 109. The porous media 109is also referred to as a wick and may comprise one or more various typesof hydrophilic material. The porous media 109 that surrounds at least aportion of the flow path may comprise a continuous material from thesample inlet 151 to at or near an optical particle detector 115(described in more detail below). Alternatively, the porous media 109may comprise different sections or portions along the flow path 101 ofthe aerosol sample flow 103 (the aerosol sample flow 103 being shownwithin the flow path 101).

In this embodiment, the porous media 109 is supplied with liquid waterfrom a water fill bottle 1111 along two water-inlet paths 113. Dependingon a specific design of the water-based CPC 100, the number ofwater-inlet paths 113 may decrease to a single inlet path or the numberof inlet paths may increase. The actual number of water-inlet paths 113designed into the water-based CPC 100 may be determined by a person ofordinary skill in the art based on aerosol flow rates, thermodynamics ofthe system, and other considerations of the water-based CPC 100. Thefirst (closest to the sample inlet 151) of the water-inlet paths 113supplies water to the porous media 109 just before a cooled conditionerportion 150 of the water-based CPC 100. The second of the water-inletpaths 113, downstream of the first, supplies additional water justbefore a heated-growth portion 170 of the water-based CPC 100. As notedin FIG. 1, smaller particles from the sample inlet 151 have “grown” insize due to condensation of water vapor onto the particles. Largerparticles 105 have a different and generally larger scattering signaturethan smaller particles. Consequently, larger particles 105 with acondensation layer are more readily detected by the optical particledetector 115 than the smaller particles entering the sample inlet 151.

For example, the larger particles 105 in the flow path 101 comprisingthe aerosol stream cross a “focus point” of a beam of light 121 emittedby a light source 117, typically a solid-state laser diode. The focuspoint is formed by an optical element 119 focusing light (e.g., to adiffraction-limited point or line that is generally perpendicular toboth the direction of the beam of light 121 output from the light source117 and the flow path 101). Scattered radiation 123 individually createdby each of the larger particles 105 is sensed by an optical sensor 125.The larger particles 105 continue out of the optical particle detector115 and are either captured by a filter 129 or continue into a waterseparator 143. Either periodically or continuously, the water separator143 is drained by a drain pump 145 to a water drain discharge 147.

Overall aerosol flow through the flow path 101 is maintained by asample-flow pump 127. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the aerosolflow rate is maintained by a critical orifice 131. In other embodiments,a standard orifice or other type of flow control mechanism may beemployed. Critical orifices are frequently used in gas-flow samplinginstruments as they are able to maintain a constant flow rate provided asufficient differential pressure is maintained across the orifice. Thesample-flow pump 127 may either be a pump internal to the water-basedCPC 100 or may be an externally-connected pump. In some embodiments, thewater-based CPC 100 may be connected directly to a vacuum-supply sourceplumbed within a facility (e.g., a vacuum-supply source of thesemiconductor-fabrication facility). Pump exhaust 141 is filtered priorto release to ambient air so as not to increase a contamination level ofthe monitored environment.

The sample-flow pump 127 may also provide a flow from the sample inlet151 through a secondary gas-flow path that includes a transport flowfilter 135, a second critical orifice 137 and an optional transport flowvalve 139. The optional transport flow valve 139 may be used to reduce atotal gas flow rate if the differential pressure across the secondcritical orifice 137 is not sufficient to maintain a constant pressure.

Referring now to FIG. 2, a cross-section of a water-based CPC is shownthat incorporates a plurality of wicks that are used to form multipleflow paths (e.g., parallel growth tubes) to form one type offalse-particle count reduction embodiment disclosed herein. Thewater-based CPC 200 functions similarly in basic operation to thewater-based CPC 100 of FIG. 1. Additionally, the water-based CPC 200 isshown to include a removable wick cartridge 201 that may be configuredto be readily removable by the end-user. The removable wick cartridge201 includes a wick stand 203 that is affixed over the removable wickcartridge 201 and a conical section 205. Adjacent to the removable wickcartridge 201 is a drain sidecar 207 having a drain reservoir 209 formedtherein.

A sample inlet (not shown specifically in FIG. 2 but similar to thesample inlet 151 of FIG. 1) is located near a lower edge of theremovable wick cartridge 201. Particles contained within an aerosolstream arriving through the sample inlet traverse one or more flow paths213 through one or more wicks 211. In an example, three wicks 211 areused to form the flow paths 213. However, the number of wicks 211 may bechanged by the manufacturer depending on factors related to maintaininga sufficiently low Reynolds number to maintain a laminar flow of theaerosol stream through the one or more flow paths 213. Such factors areknown to a skilled artisan and include determining a ratio of inertialforces to viscous forces of the aerosol flow based on a mean velocityand density of the fluid in the aerosol stream, as well as dynamic andkinematic viscosities of the fluid, and a characteristic lineardimension relating to an internal cross-section of the wicks 211.Additionally, a single wick 211 with multiple paths formed therein(e.g., by “drilling” out or otherwise forming or opening more paths) mayalso be used.

The wick stand 203 splits the incoming aerosol stream and contains anumber of outlet paths equal to the number of wicks. In the embodimentdepicted by FIG. 2, the wick stand 203 has three outlet paths. The wickstand also provides a physical mechanical-interface onto which the wicks211 are mounted. When more than one wick 211 is used, a flow joiner 215combines particles from the three aerosol streams into a single aerosolstream immediately prior to a particle detection chamber 219. Theparticle detection chamber 219 may be similar to the optical particledetector 115 of FIG. 1. More detail regarding the wicks and the wickstands may be found with reference to PCT Application US2016/019083,filed 23 Feb. 2016.

One or more cooling fans 223 reduce or eliminate any excess heatproduced within the water-based CPC 200 by, for example, one or morecircuit boards 221, as well as heating elements and thermo-electricdevices.

Similar to the basic thermodynamic principles discussed with referenceto the water-based CPC 100 of FIG. 1, the water-based CPC 200 of FIG. 2shows a conditioner portion 220, an initiator portion 240, and amoderator portion 260. The conditioner portion 220 is cooled to beginthe process of forming a condensate on particles in the aerosol stream.The initiator portion 240 is heated and is the portion of thewater-based CPC 200 where condensate is formed on each of the individualparticles. The moderator portion 260 is cooled sufficiently, relative tothe initiator portion 240, such that moist air entering the particledetection chamber 219 is reduced or eliminated. A water fill bottle 217provides a reservoir of clean water (e.g., FPLC, other ultra-pure water,or distilled water) to keep the wicks 211 hydrated to provide watervapor in the flow paths 213 to condense on the particles. However,either an excess volume of water, or water provided to the wicks 211 toorapidly (e.g., when supplied in “spurts”), can contribute to theformation of either water bubbles or empty droplets not containing anyparticles. Either of these conditions can lead to an increase infalse-particle counts.

In one embodiment, water from the water fill bottle 217 is supplied tothe wicks 211 by gravity feed. In another embodiment, water from thewater fill bottle 217 is supplied to the wicks 211 periodically throughwater pumps (not shown). In another embodiment, water from the waterfill bottle 217 is supplied to the wicks 211 either continuously orperiodically through a syringe-injection arrangement (not shownspecifically but understood by a skilled artisan). In anotherembodiment, the water fill bottle may be either slightly pressurized ordriven with a pneumatic or hydraulic ram system to act as a type ofsyringe-injection system. In another embodiment, water from the waterfill bottle 217 is supplied to the wicks 211 periodically from eitherthe water pumps or one of the types of syringe-injection system througha pulsation damper (e.g., a reservoir designed to reduce or eliminaterapid increase in volumetric flow of the water). By supplying the watereither continuously (e.g., through syringe-injection) or periodically(e.g., utilizing the pulsation damper mechanism), excess water over ashort period of time to the wicks is reduced or eliminated.

In various embodiments, hydrogen peroxide may be added to the water fillbottle 217 to prevent bacterial growth. In various embodiments, silverimpregnation of the wicks or other bio-inhibitors, such as UVillumination, may be employed either separately from or in combinationwith hydrogen peroxide added to the water fill bottle 217. Likeparticles in the aerosol stream, bacteria formed within the water can bethe basis of a nucleation point in the flow paths 213. Condensed wateron the bacteria flowing into the particle detection chamber 219 willthen be counted as a particle. The bacteria therefore can also increasethe false-particle count of the CPC.

Generally, regardless of the water delivery technique chosen, airbubbles in delivery lines to the wicks 211 should be avoided to reduceor eliminate water bubbles being formed within the flow paths 213. Also,any dead air volumes within the water delivery paths are avoided.

However, regardless of how the water is supplied to the wicks 211, anyexcess water should be drained off before it causes bubbles or emptywater droplets in the aerosol stream flowing through the flow paths 213.The drain sidecar 207 may include an exhaust-air port, a water-sensorport, and a water-drain port (not shown but readily understood by aperson of ordinary skill in the art). The exhaust-air port allows waterfrom the water reservoir to drain more readily by drawing air and may becoupled to, for example, the sample-flow pump 127 (FIG. 1) or anotherpump mounted either internal to or external to the water-based CPC 200.

When water is supplied to the wicks 211, excess water from the wicks 211drains into the water reservoir. When the water supply to the wicks 211is sufficient, the water sensor then supplies a signal to stop the watersupply. The water sensor may be electrically coupled by an electricallead to one of the circuit boards 221 to determine when water is presentin the drain sidecar 207. A constant air flow through the exhaust-airport of the drain sidecar 207 pulls water from the water reservoirtoward the drain sidecar 207. The drain sidecar 207 includes the watersensor that detects when the drain fills with water to a certainpredetermined level, at which point the water is extracted by a separatepump.

In other embodiments, the water sensor may instead comprise atemperature sensing device (e.g., a thermocouple or thermistor) or ahumidity sensing device to determine when water is present in the drainsidecar 207. After water is detected, the water is pumped out of thedrain sidecar 207 through the water-drain port by, for example, asolenoid-activated micro-pump. In a specific exemplary embodiment, themicro-pump may draw water at a variable approximate flow rate of fromabout 50 μ-liters/minute to about 200 μ-liters/minute. In otherembodiments, the micro-pump may draw water at a substantially constantapproximate flow rate of about 150 μ-liters/minute. More detailregarding the drain sidecar may be found with reference to PCTApplication US2016/019083, filed 23 Feb. 2016.

FIG. 3A shows an isometric view of an embodiment of a detector portion300 of a water-based CPC having multiple flow paths (e.g., parallelgrowth tubes), as in FIG. 2, and incorporating separate optical particledetectors 301A, 301B, 301C. Each of the separate optical particledetectors 301A, 301B, 301C is coupled to a respective one of theindividual flow paths 213 (see FIG. 2). Consequently, the three separateoptical particle detectors 301A, 301B, 301C may be utilized in place ofthe flow joiner 215 of FIG. 2 that combines particles from the threeaerosol streams into a single aerosol stream immediately prior todirecting the aerosol stream to the single particle detection chamber219.

Each of the optical particle detectors 301A, 301B, 301C is shown toinclude a respective aerosol exhaust path 303A, 303B, 303C, and arespective circuit board 305A, 305B, 305C. Each of the circuit boards305A, 305B, 305C coupled to a respective one of the optical particledetectors 301A, 301B, 301C may include functions such as a laser driverto drive a light source (e.g., similar to or the same as the lightsource 117 of FIG, 1), particle detection circuitry (e.g., to receive asignal caused by a detected particle from a particle detector (e.g.,similar to or the same as the optical sensor 125 of FIG. 1), as well asa microprocessor to calculate various statistical parameters to reduceor eliminate false-particle counts as discussed in more detail withregard to FIGS. 4, 5A, and 5B, below. In other embodiments, a separatemicroprocessor (not shown) may be electrically coupled to each of thecircuit boards 305A, 305B, 305C to calculate the various statisticalparameters in addition to other control functions.

After the aerosol stream traverses the respective optical particledetector and exhaust path, any particles in the aerosol stream may thenbe either captured by a filter 129 or continue into a water separator143 as shown in FIG. 1.

FIG. 3B shows another isometric view of an embodiment of a detectorportion 350 of a water-based CPC of FIG. 3A, with certain componentsbeing removed to more clearly indicate each of the separate opticalparticle detectors 301A, 301B, 301C. Although FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B eachshow three particle detectors, a skilled artisan will recognize, uponreading and understanding the disclosure provided herein, that more thanthree (e.g., four, five, six, or more) particle detectors (one per arespective number of wicks), or fewer (e.g., two) may be utilized torealize the benefits of the false-particle reduction or eliminationtechniques discussed. Generally, a geometric similarity of the flowpaths should be considered in any design layout. However, differences inflow path geometries may accounted for by measurement or inference(e.g., based on differences in an inside diameter or area ratios of thevarious flow paths), and incorporated into the particle count comparisonmethod, discussed with reference to FIGS. 5A and 5B. Also, anydifferences in counting efficiencies by each the plurality of particledetectors may be considered and factored in for determining a number ofactual particles being detected (e.g., if all three detectors are not100% efficient for a given particle size, a correction factor may beincluded when determining an actual particle count or false count).

Referring now to FIG. 4, a graph shows the cumulative probability that,for n=1 to 100 particles, and given two equally probable paths, thecumulative probability that up to “x” particles choose a given path,“X.” Therefore, with two equally probable paths, these statistics arebased on a binomial probability.

As a result of this statistical modeling, a skilled artisan willrecognize that false count spikes that originate inside individual wickscan be distinguished from real counts (e.g., actual particles) thatoriginate outside the wicks using a particle counter for each wick alongwith statistics. The false counts can be distinguished since it isunlikely that a large spike of particles from outside the wicks will bedetected in only one wick (assuming equally performing wicks).

For example, if the total particle count in two wicks is 100, then thereis only approximately a 5% chance that there are 60 particles in thefirst wick and 40 in the second wick. A count split between the twowicks of 70 in one wick in 30 in the other is statistically much lesslikely. Consequently, the binomial statistics, discussed in greaterdetail below with reference to FIGS. 5A and 5B, serve to calculate theconfidence that spikes in a particular wick above a given pre-determinedthreshold number of particles can be excluded as false counts.

In one test case, a high false-count rate of approximately 42 counts perminute in a three-wick cleanroom-type prototype CPC was measured.However, many of these counts were from air bubbles or empty dropletsthat originated within one or more of the wicks or along one or more ofthe individual wick paths. Consequently, most of the counts were notbased on actual particles (e.g., particle events within an aerosolstream sampled from within the cleanroom). By applying the algorithmsand techniques discussed herein (and discussed in greater detail below),researchers noted a nearly 20-times reduction in false-count rates witha concomitant drop in measured large spikes of particles. Utilizing thetechniques and systems disclosed herein resulted in a “filtered” countrate (e.g., after applying the techniques) of 4.7 counts per minute. Thefiltered count rate only requires data from a “current” time period(e.g., a pre-determined sampling period).

In another use of the techniques, a short time interval “look-back”component can account for sub-threshold false counts that follow anabove-threshold spike. Using the look-back component resulted in a countrate of 2.6 counts per minute compared with the raw count rate of 42counts per minute.

With reference now to FIGS. 5A and 5B, a first portion of the method500A and a second portion of the method 500B using a decision tree-basedalgorithm to reduce or eliminate false counts is shown. In general, thedecision process as to whether to adjust particle counts proceeds inthree steps: (1) order particle counts during a given time interval inthe three wicks, A, B, and C, such that the counts in the wicks arearranged so that count A is greater than B, which is greater than C; (2)for each wick pair (i.e., A and B, B and C, and A and C), count thetotal number of particles in each of the two wicks and, based on thebinomial probability discussed above, determine a threshold spike sizethat would be expected to be improbable for a desired confidence level(e.g., 95%, 99%, 99.9% confidence intervals); and (3) use a decisiontree-based algorithm to eliminate probable false counts. The methodshown in FIGS. 5A and 5B is thus based on an assumed difference inparticle counts in the three wicks and thus is not used in a case wherecounts the three wicks are all equal.

With reference now to FIG. 5A, the first portion of the method 500Abegins at operation 501 by comparing the counts as measured within wicksA and B (ordered by count as noted above). A determination is then madeat operation 503 as to whether the count in wick A exceeds thepre-determined threshold value, as noted above. Based on a determinationthat the threshold value is exceeded, then the counts in wicks B and Care compared at operation 505. A determination is then made at operation507 as to whether the count in wick B exceeds the pre-determinedthreshold value.

Based on a determination that the threshold value is exceeded, then atoperation 509 the algorithm indicates that wick A and wick B eachcontain false counts. Accordingly, at operation 511, the count for eachof wicks A and B are set to be equal to the count as measured withinwick C.

If, however, based on a determination at operation 507 that the countwithin wick B does not exceed the threshold value, then at operation 513the algorithm indicates that only wick A, and not wick B, contains falsecounts. Accordingly, at operation 515, the count from wick A is setsubstantially or exactly to be equal to the summation of wicks B and Cdivided by 2 (i.e., the average count value of wicks B and C).

Referring back again to operation 503, based on a determination that thecount within wick A does not exceed the threshold value, then atoperation 517, the counts measured within wicks A and C are compared. Atoperation 519A, the first portion of the method 500A continues from FIG.5A to FIG. 5B.

Continuing with the second portion of the method 500B, and coming intoFIG. 5B from operation 519A (FIG. 5A) at operation 519B, a determinationis then made at operation 521 as to whether the count in wick A exceedsthe pre-determined threshold value based on the comparison with thecount measured within wicks A and C from operation 517 (FIG. 5A).

Based on a determination that the count within wick A exceeds thethreshold value, then the counts in wicks B and C are compared atoperation 523. A determination is then made at operation 525 as towhether the count in wick B exceeds the pre-determined threshold value.

Based on a determination that the threshold value is exceeded, then atoperation 527 the algorithm indicates that wick A and wick B eachcontain false counts. Accordingly, at operation 529, the count for eachof wicks A and B are set to be equal to the count as measured withinwick C.

If, however, based on a determination at operation 525 that the countwithin wick B does not exceed the threshold value, then at operation 531the algorithm indicates that only wick A, and not wick B, contains falsecounts.

Accordingly, at operation 533, the count from wick A is set to besubstantially or exactly equal to the summation of wicks B and C dividedby (i.e., the average value of wicks 13 and C).

Referring back again to operation 521, based on a determination that thecount within wick A does not exceed the threshold value, then atoperation 535 the algorithm indicates, to get to this point in thesecond portion of the method 500B, that the count within wick B must nothave exceeded the threshold for comparing wicks 13 and C. Accordingly,there are no false counts in any of the wicks, as indicated by operation537, and that there is no change needed in the measured counts in wicksA, B, or C as indicated in operation 539.

The decision tree-based algorithm is illustrated in method 500A, 500B ofFIGS. 5A and 5B for three wicks. However, a skilled artisan, based onreading and understanding the disclosure provided herein, will recognizethat the algorithm can be used for a greater number of wicks (e.g.,four, five, six, or more) or a fewer number of wicks (i.e., two).Therefore, the method 500A, 500B can be readily modified for a number ofwicks other than three. For example, the skilled artisan may modify thebinomial probability used for method 500A, 500B with a trinomial orhigher order probability scheme.

The description above includes illustrative examples, devices, andapparatuses that embody the disclosed subject matter. In thedescription, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details wereset forth in order to provide an understanding of various embodiments ofthe inventive subject matter. It will be evident, however, to those ofordinary skill in the art that various embodiments of the inventivesubject matter may be practiced without these specific details. Further,well-known structures, materials, and techniques have not been shown indetail, so as not to obscure the various illustrated embodiments,

As used herein, the term “or” may be construed in an inclusive orexclusive sense. Additionally, although various exemplary embodimentsdiscussed below focus on particular ways to reduce false-particle countsby eliminating empty water droplets or bubbles being counted as actualparticles, other embodiments consider electronic filtering techniques.However, none of these techniques needs to be applied to reducing oreliminating particle counts as a single technique. Upon reading andunderstanding the disclosure provided herein, a person of ordinary skillin the art will readily understand that various combinations of thetechniques and examples may all be applied serially or in variouscombinations. As an introduction to the subject, a few embodiments willbe described briefly and generally in the following paragraphs, and thena more detailed description, with reference to the figures, will ensue.

Although various embodiments are discussed separately, these separateembodiments are not intended to be considered as independent techniquesor designs. As indicated above, each of the various portions may beinter-related and each may be used separately or in combination withother false-count particle reduction techniques discussed herein.

Moreover, although specific values, ranges of values, and techniques aregiven for various parameters discussed above, these values andtechniques are provided merely to aid the person of ordinary skill inthe art in understanding certain characteristics of the designs andtechniques disclosed herein. Those of ordinary skill in the art willrealize, upon reading and understanding the disclosure provided, thatthese values and techniques are presented as examples only and numerousother values, ranges of values, and techniques may be employed whilestill benefiting from the novel designs discussed that may be employedto lower false counts in water-based CPCs. Therefore, the variousillustrations of the apparatus are intended to provide a generalunderstanding of the structure and design of various embodiments and arenot intended to provide a complete description of all the elements andfeatures of the apparatus that might make use of the structures,features, and designs described herein.

Many modifications and variations can be made, as will be apparent to aperson of ordinary skill in the art upon reading and understanding thedisclosure provided herein. Functionally equivalent methods and deviceswithin the scope of the disclosure, in addition to those enumeratedherein, will be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art fromthe foregoing descriptions. Portions and features of some embodimentsmay be included in, or substituted for, those of others. Many otherembodiments will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art uponreading and understanding the description provided. Such modificationsand variations are intended to fall within a scope of the appendedclaims. Therefore, the present disclosure is to be limited only by theterms of the appended claims, along with the full scope of equivalentsto which such claims are entitled. It is also to be understood that theterminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particularembodiments only and is not intended to be limiting.

The Abstract of the Disclosure is provided to allow the reader toquickly ascertain the nature of the technical disclosure. The abstractis submitted with the understanding that it will not be used tointerpret or limit the claims. In addition, in the foregoing DetailedDescription, it may be seen that various features may be groupedtogether in a single embodiment for the purpose of streamlining thedisclosure. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted aslimiting the claims. Thus, the following claims are hereby incorporatedinto the Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as aseparate embodiment.

1. A system to reduce false-particle counts in a condensation particlecounter (CPC), the system comprising: an aerosol sample inlet configuredto be coupled to a sample flow pump; an aerosol flow path in fluidcommunication with and disposed between the aerosol sample inlet and thesample flow pump; a plurality of wicks comprising at least a portion ofthe aerosol flow path, the plurality of wicks each comprising a porousmedia forming at least a portion of the aerosol flow path; and anoptical particle detector coupled to an outlet of each of the pluralityof wicks to measure counts within respective ones of the plurality ofwicks; and a processor coupled to each optical particle detector tocompare a count from each of the plurality of wicks with a count ofremaining ones of the plurality of wicks to make a determination whetherthe count from any of the plurality of wicks is statistically greaterthan the counts of the remaining ones of the plurality of wicks, thestatistically greater count being a false count.
 2. The system of claim1, further comprising, based on the determination that the count isstatistically greater for the count of one of the plurality of wicks,the processor further to reduce the false count by a pre-determinedamount in calculating a reported value of particle concentration.
 3. Thesystem of claim 1, wherein one count being statistically greater thananother count is based on binomial probability theory for apre-determined confidence interval.
 4. The system of claim 1, whereineach of the plurality of wicks is field replaceable by an end-user ofthe CPC.
 5. The system of claims 1, wherein each of the plurality ofwicks is silver impregnated to reduce or prevent bacterial growth withinthe plurality of wicks.
 6. The system of claim 1, wherein each of theplurality of wicks is treated with a bio-inhibitor to reduce or preventbacterial growth within the plurality of wicks.
 7. The system of claim1, further comprising a removable wick cartridge having a wick standonto which to mount the plurality of wicks, the wick stand beingconfigured to split an incoming aerosol stream into a number of outletpaths equal to a number of the plurality of wicks.
 8. The system ofclaim 7, wherein the removable wick cartridge is in fluid communicationwith a drain sidecar having a drain reservoir, the drain sidecar beingconfigured to drain excess water supplied to the plurality of wicks toreduce or eliminate bubbles or empty water droplets from flowing in theaerosol flow path.
 9. The system of claim 1, wherein a number of theplurality of wicks is based on factors related to maintain asufficiently low Reynolds number to maintain a laminar flow of anaerosol stream within each of the plurality of wicks.
 10. The system ofclaim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of wicks is three.
 11. Asystem to reduce false-particle counts in a condensation particlecounter (CPC), the system comprising: at least one wick having aplurality of aerosol flow paths formed therein, the at least one wickcomprising a porous media; and an optical particle detector coupled toan outlet of each of the plurality of aerosol flow paths to measurecounts from respective ones of the plurality of aerosol flow paths; anda processor coupled to each optical particle detector to compare a countfrom each of the plurality of aerosol flow paths with a count ofremaining ones of the plurality of aerosol flow paths to make adetermination whether the count from any of the plurality of aerosolflow paths is statistically greater than the counts of the remainingones of the plurality of aerosol flow paths, the statistically greatercount being a false count.
 12. The system of claim 11, furthercomprising, based on the determination that the count is statisticallygreater for the count of one of the plurality of aerosol flow paths, theprocessor further to reduce the false count by a pre-determined amountin calculating a reported value of particle concentration.
 13. Thesystem of claim 11, wherein one count being statistically greater thananother count is based on binomial probability theory for apre-determined confidence interval.
 14. The system of claim 11, furthercomprising the at least one wick being in fluid communication with adrain sidecar having a drain reservoir, the drain sidecar beingconfigured to drain excess water supplied to the at least one wick. 15.The system of claim 14, further comprising a sensor to provide a signalto stop a water supply when the water supply to the at least one wick issufficient based on a determination that water is in the drain sidecar.16. The system of claim 15, wherein the sensor comprises at least onetype of sensor selected from sensor types including a water sensor, atemperature sensor, and a humidity sensor.
 17. A method of reducingfalse-particle counts in a condensation particle counter (CPC), themethod comprising: measuring counts with a particle detector coupled toan outlet of each a plurality of aerosol flow paths within one or morewicks within the CPC; making a determination whether a count from any ofthe plurality of aerosol flow paths is statistically greater thanrespective counts of remaining ones of the plurality of aerosol flowpaths, based on binomial probability theory, the statistically greatercount being a false count; and reducing the false count by apre-determined amount in calculating a reported value of particleconcentration.
 18. The method of claim 17, further comprising drainingexcess water supplied to the one or more wicks to reduce or eliminatebubbles or empty water droplets from flowing in the plurality of aerosolflow paths within the one or more wicks.
 19. The method of claim 17,further comprising flowing a constant supply of air through an exhaustport of a drain coupled to the one or more wicks to reduce or eliminatebubbles or empty water droplets from flowing in the plurality of aerosolflow paths.
 20. The method of claim 17, further comprising: comparing acount between pairs of the plurality of aerosol flow paths; and orderingparticle counts from the comparison according to a total number ofcounts from each of the plurality of aerosol flow paths during apre-determined time interval.
 21. The method of claim 17, furthercomprising applying a comparison factor to the measured counts for eachof the plurality of aerosol flow paths based on differences ingeometries of the aerosol flow paths.
 22. The method of claim 17,further comprising applying an efficiency factor for each of theparticle detectors to account for differences in counting efficiencybetween the particle detectors.
 23. A method of reducing false-pa ecounts in a condensation particle counter (CPC), the method comprising:comparing a count from each of a plurality of wicks from the CPC with acount of remaining ones of the plurality of wicks; based on thecomparison, making a determination whether the count from any of theplurality of wicks is statistically greater than the counts of theremaining ones of the plurality of wicks, the statistically greatercount being a false count; and based on the determination that the countis statistically greater for the count of one of the plurality of wicks,reducing the false count by a pre-determined amount in calculating areported value of particle concentration.
 24. The method of claim 23,wherein one count being statistically greater than another count isbased on binomial probability theory for a pre-determined confidenceinterval.